A phase III randomised controlled trial of single-dose triple therapy in COPD: the IMPACT protocol

Impact of Smoking and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease on All-Cause, Respiratory, and Cardio-Cerebrovascular Mortality

Introduction

Mortality differences in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) between nonsmokers and smokers remain unclear. We compared the risk of death associated with smoking and COPD on mortality.

Methods

The study included participants aged ≥40 years who visited pulmonary clinics and were categorised into COPD or non-COPD and smoker or nonsmoker on the basis of spirometry results and cigarette consumption. Mortality rates were compared between groups using statistical analysis for all-cause mortality, respiratory disease-related mortality, and cardiocerebrovascular disease-related mortality.

Results

Among 5811 participants, smokers with COPD had a higher risk of all-cause (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 1.69; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.23-2.33) and respiratory disease-related mortality (aHR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.20-3.79) than nonsmokers with COPD. Non-smokers with and without COPD had comparable risks of all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.98-1.97) and respiratory disease-related mortality (aHR, 1.77; 95% CI, 0.85-3.68). However, nonsmokers with COPD had a higher risk of cardiocerebrovascular disease-related mortality than nonsmokers without COPD (aHR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.15-4.40).

Conclusion

The study found that smokers with COPD had higher risks of all-cause mortality and respiratory disease-related mortality compared to nonsmokers with and without COPD. Meanwhile, nonsmokers with COPD showed comparable risks of all-cause and respiratory mortality but had a higher risk of cardiocerebrovascular disease-related mortality compared to nonsmokers without COPD.

Inhaled corticosteroids with combination inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) commonly involves a combination of long-acting bronchodilators including beta2-agonists (LABA) and muscarinic antagonists (LAMA). LABA and LAMA bronchodilators are now available in single-combination inhalers. In individuals with persistent symptoms or frequent exacerbations, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are also used with combination LABA and LAMA inhalers. However, the benefits and risks of adding ICS to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers as a triple therapy remain unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of adding an ICS to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers for the treatment of stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase up to 30 November 2022. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP up to 30 November 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials of three weeks' duration or longer that compared the treatment of stable COPD with ICS in addition to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers against combination LABA/LAMA inhalers alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcomes were acute exacerbations of COPD, respiratory health-related quality of life, pneumonia and other serious adverse events. The secondary outcomes were symptom scores, lung function, physical capacity, and mortality. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for studies that contributed data to our prespecified outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Four studies with a total of 15,412 participants met the inclusion criteria. The mean age of study participants ranged from 64.4 to 65.3 years; the proportion of female participants ranged from 28% to 40%. Most participants had symptomatic COPD (COPD Assessment Test Score ≥ 10) with severe to very severe airflow limitation (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) < 50% predicted) and one or more moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations in the last 12 months. Trial medications differed amongst studies. The duration of follow-up was 52 weeks in three studies and 24 weeks in one study. We assessed the risk of selection, performance, and detection bias to be low in the included studies; one study was at high risk of attrition bias, and one study was at high risk of reporting bias. Triple therapy may reduce rates of moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers (rate ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 0.81; n = 15,397; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis stratifying by blood eosinophil counts showed there may be a greater reduction in rate of moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations with triple therapy in participants with high-eosinophils (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.75) compared to low-eosinophils (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.93) (test for subgroup differences: P < 0.01) (high/low cut-offs: 150 eosinophils/µL in three studies; 200 eosinophils/µL in one study). However, moderate-to-substantial heterogeneity was observed in both high- and low-eosinophil subgroups. These subgroup analyses are observational by nature and thus results should be interpreted with caution. Triple therapy may be associated with reduced rates of severe COPD exacerbations (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.84; n = 14,131; low-certainty evidence). Triple therapy improved health-related quality of life assessed using the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) by the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold (4-point decrease) (35.3% versus 42.4%, odds ratio (OR) 1.35, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.45; n = 14,070; high-certainty evidence). Triple therapy may result in fewer symptoms measured using the Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.57; n = 3044; moderate-certainty evidence) and improved lung function as measured by change in trough FEV1 (mean difference 38.68 mL, 95% CI 22.58 to 54.77; n = 11,352; low-certainty evidence). However, these benefits fell below MCID thresholds for TDI (1-unit decrease) and trough FEV1 (100 mL), respectively. Triple therapy is probably associated with a higher risk of pneumonia as a serious adverse event compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers (3.3% versus 1.9%, OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.18; n = 15,412; moderate-certainty evidence). In contrast, all-cause serious adverse events may be similar between groups (19.7% versus 19.7%, OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; n = 15,412; low-certainty evidence). All-cause mortality may be lower with triple therapy (1.4% versus 2.0%, OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.90; n = 15,397; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests that triple therapy may reduce rates of COPD exacerbations (low-certainty evidence) and results in an improvement in health-related quality of life (high-certainty evidence) compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers, but probably confers an increased pneumonia risk as a serious adverse event (moderate-certainty evidence). Triple therapy probably improves respiratory symptoms and may improve lung function (moderate- and low-certainty evidence, respectively); however, these benefits do not appear to be clinically significant. Triple therapy may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers (low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was downgraded most frequently for inconsistency or indirectness. Across the four included studies, there were important differences in inclusion criteria, trial medications, and duration of follow-up. Investigation of heterogeneity was limited due to the small number of included studies. We found limited data on the effects of triple therapy compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers in patients with mild-moderate COPD and those without a recent exacerbation history.

Effect of chronic mucus hypersecretion on treatment responses to inhaled therapies in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Post hoc analysis of the IMPACT trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Chronic mucus hypersecretion (CMH) is a clinical phenotype of COPD. This exploratory post hoc analysis assessed relationship between CMH status and treatment response in IMPACT.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 μg, FF/VI 100/25 μg or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg and designated CMH+ if they scored 1/2 in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) questions 1 and 2. Endpoints assessed by baseline CMH status included on-treatment exacerbation rates, change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second, SGRQ total score, COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score, proportion of SGRQ and CAT responders at Week 52 and safety.

RESULTS

Of 10,355 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 10,250 reported baseline SGRQ data (CMH+: 62% [n = 6383]). FF/UMEC/VI significantly (p < 0.001) reduced on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in CMH+ (rate ratio: 0.87 and 0.72) and CMH- patients (0.82 and 0.80). FF/UMEC/VI significantly (p < 0.05) reduced on-treatment severe exacerbation rates versus UMEC/VI in CMH+ (0.62) and CMH- (0.74) subgroups. Similar improvements in health status and lung function with FF/UMEC/VI were observed, regardless of CMH status. In CMH+ patients, FF/VI significantly (p < 0.001) reduced on-treatment moderate/severe and severe exacerbation rates versus UMEC/VI (0.83 and 0.70).

CONCLUSION

FF/UMEC/VI had a favourable benefit: risk profile versus dual therapies irrespective of CMH status. The presence of CMH did not influence treatment response or exacerbations, lung function and/or health status. However, CMH did generate differences when dual therapies were compared and the impact of CMH should be considered in future trial design.

Single-inhaler triple therapy fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus dual therapy in current and former smokers with COPD: IMPACT trial post hoc analysis

BACKGROUND

Smoking is the major risk factor for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In IMPACT, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy significantly reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates and improved lung function and health status versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in COPD patients. This post hoc analysis investigated trial outcomes by smoking status.

METHODS

IMPACT was a double-blind, 52-week trial. Patients aged ≥40 years with symptomatic COPD and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year were randomized 2:2:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 μg, FF/VI 100/25 μg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg. Endpoints assessed by smoking status at screening included rate and risk of moderate/severe exacerbations, change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s, and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score at Week 52. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 10,355 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 3,587 (35%) were current smokers. FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in current (rate ratio 0.85 [95% confidence interval: 0.77-0.95]; P = 0.003 and 0.86 [0.76-0.98]; P = 0.021) and former smokers (0.85 [0.78-0.91]; P < 0.001 and 0.70 [0.64-0.77]; P < 0.001). FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced time-to-first on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in former smokers, and versus FF/VI in current smokers. Similar trends were seen for lung function and health status. Former smokers receiving inhaled corticosteroid-containing therapy had higher pneumonia incidence than current smokers.

CONCLUSIONS

FF/UMEC/VI improved clinical outcomes versus dual therapy regardless of smoking status. Benefits of FF/UMEC/VI versus UMEC/VI were greatest in former smokers, potentially due to relative corticosteroid resistance in current smokers.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

GSK (CTT116855/NCT02164513).

New Perspectives on Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide; many recent advances have been made in many aspects of the disease. The aim of this article is to illustrate and discuss some of these advances in the management of different types of patients. Large-scale trials have confirmed that long-acting bronchodilator therapy, particularly using the combination of LABA/LAMA, remains the mainstay of COPD treatment, with special attention being paid to careful selection of inhaler devices. The initial choice of pharmacological therapy is based on the GOLD ABCD grouping of patients. It is very important to stress that there is a need to implement a management cycle because COPD is a chronic disease with varying clinical course and a high number of potential comorbidities that may affect morbidity and mortality. Therefore, regular reevaluation of the patient is mandatory. This allows identification of characteristics aimed at maximizing the benefits for a specific patient or a subset of patients. Within this context, the role of the blood eosinophil count as a marker of inhaled corticosteroids response to prevent future exacerbations in patients who, despite appropriate bronchodilator therapy, still suffer from them has been proven to be a useful simple biomarker in medication selection. These advances support the concept of precision medicine, with the goal that patients get the right medicine at the right time for the right reason. Finally, recent studies have shown that early life events may be of critical relevance for the development of COPD. With this as a background, concepts to identify individuals at risk and early identification of cases have become an important objective of current research with the hope of maximizing the effects of therapy and the possibility of impacting disease progression.

Time‐Dependent Risk of Cardiovascular Events Following an Exacerbation in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Post Hoc Analysis From the IMPACT Trial

Background

The association between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations and increased cardiovascular event risk has not been adequately studied in a heterogenous population with both low and high cardiovascular risk.

Methods and Results

This post hoc analysis of the IMPACT (Informing the Pathway of COPD Treatment) trial (N=10 355 symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease at risk of exacerbations) evaluated time‐dependent risk of cardiovascular adverse events of special interest (CVAESI) following exacerbations and impact of exacerbation history, cardiovascular risk factors, and study treatment on this association. Risk (time‐to‐first) of CVAESI or CVAESI resulting in hospitalization or death was assessed during and 1 to 30, 31 to 90, and 91 to 365 days after resolution of moderate or severe exacerbations. CVAESI risk was compared between the period before and during/after exacerbation. CVAESI risk increased significantly during a moderate (hazard ratio [HR], 2.63 [95% CI, 2.08–3.32]) or severe (HR, 21.84 [95% CI, 17.71–26.93]) exacerbation and remained elevated for 30 days following an exacerbation (moderate: HR, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.28–2.08]; severe: HR, 1.75 [95% CI, 0.99–3.11; nonsignificant]) and decreased over time, returning to baseline by 90 days. Risk of CVAESI resulting in hospitalization or death also increased during an exacerbation (moderate: HR, 2.46 [95% CI, 1.53–3.97]; severe: HR, 41.29 [95% CI, 30.43–56.03]) and decreased in a similar time‐dependent pattern. Results were consistent regardless of exacerbation history, cardiovascular risk at screening, or study treatment.

Conclusions

Overall risk of cardiovascular events was higher during and in the 30 days following chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations, even among those with low cardiovascular risk, highlighting the need for exacerbation prevention and vigilance for cardiovascular events following exacerbations.

Registration

URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02164513; Unique identifier: NCT02164513

Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy in Patients with Advanced COPD: Bayesian Modeling of the Healthcare Resource Utilization Data and Associated Costs from the IMPACT Trial

Objectives

In the IMPACT trial (NCT02164513), triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) showed clinical benefit compared with dual therapy with either FF/VI or UMEC/VI in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We used data from IMPACT to determine whether this translated into differences in COPD-related healthcare resource utilization (HRU) costs in a United Kingdom (UK) setting.

Methods

In a within-trial analysis, individual patient data from the IMPACT intention-to-treat (ITT) population were analyzed to estimate rates of COPD-related HRU with FF/UMEC/VI, FF/VI, or UMEC/VI. A Bayesian approach was applied to address issues typically encountered with this kind of data, namely data missing due to early study withdrawal, subjects with zero reported HRU, and skewness. Rates of HRU were estimated under alternate assumptions of data being missing at random (MAR) or missing not at random (MNAR). UK-specific unit costs were then applied to estimated HRU rates to calculate treatment-specific costs.

Results

Under each MNAR scenario, per patient per year (PPPY) rates of COPD-related HRU were lowest amongst those patients who received treatment with FF/UMEC/VI compared with those receiving either FF/VI or UMEC/VI. Although absolute HRU rates and costs were typically higher for all treatment groups under MNAR scenarios versus MAR, final economic conclusions were robust to patient withdrawals.

Conclusions

PPPY rates were typically lower with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI.

IL-36 is Closely Related to Neutrophilic Inflammation in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Background

Interleukin (IL)-36α, IL-36β, and IL-36γ belong to the IL-36 family and play an important role in the pathogenesis of many diseases. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may be correlated with IL-36; however, the specific role of IL-36 in COPD is unclear. In this study, we aimed to clarify whether IL-36 could be an indicator for determining COPD severity and the specific nature of the pro-inflammatory effects of IL-36 in COPD.

Methods

A total of 70 patients with COPD and 20 control subjects were included in this study. We collected peripheral blood samples from both the groups, analyzed the blood cell fractions by routine blood examination, and measured the serum levels of IL-36α, IL-36β, and IL-36γ by performing polymerase chain reaction and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. In addition, the correlation between the number of neutrophils and eosinophils and the level of IL-36 was also analyzed.

Results

We found that level of IL-36 in patients with COPD was positively correlated with the number of neutrophils but not with eosinophils, whereas the correlation was not found in the control group. Moreover, the level of IL-36 was negatively correlated with the level of lung function of patients with COPD, and the levels of IL-36α, IL-36β, and IL-36γ increased with advancing disease severity.

Conclusion

In COPD, the pro-inflammatory effect of IL-36 is closely related to neutrophils, and hence, IL-36 might be considered a novel biomarker for determining COPD severity.

Higher COPD Assessment Test Score Associated With Greater Exacerbations Risk: A Post Hoc Analysis of the IMPACT Trial

BACKGROUND

In the InforMing the PAthway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This post hoc analysis tested the relationship between baseline health status, risk of future exacerbations, and efficacy outcomes.

METHODS

IMPACT was a Phase 3, double-blind, 52-week trial in patients with symptomatic COPD (COPD Assessment Test [CAT] score ≥10) and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year randomized 2:2:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25mcg, FF/VI 100/25mcg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25mcg. Annual rate of on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbations, lung function, and safety were analyzed by continuous baseline CAT score.

RESULTS

Moderate/severe exacerbation rates increased with increasing baseline CAT scores in FF/UMEC/VI and UMEC/VI arms. There was a very small increase in on-treatment pneumonia rates at higher baseline CAT scores across all treatment arms. FF/UMEC/VI reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus UMEC/VI (i.e., the inhaled corticosteroid effect) consistently across the range of CAT scores. The reduction with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI (i.e., the long-acting muscarinic antagonist effect) was greatest at lower CAT scores and appeared lesser at higher CAT scores. Improvements in lung function were observed with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI, regardless of baseline CAT score.

CONCLUSIONS

The CAT score was predictive of exacerbation risk. Worse baseline health status was associated with higher moderate/severe exacerbation and pneumonia rates. Irrespective of baseline CAT score, FF/UMEC/VI improved lung function, and reduced the annual moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus dual therapy. Results indicate an overall favorable benefit-risk profile of triple versus dual therapy, irrespective of CAT score. Clinical Trial Registration:GSK (CTT116855/NCT02164513).

Real-time PCR has advantages over culture-based methods in identifying major airway bacterial pathogens in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Results from three clinical studies in Europe and North America

Introduction

We compared the performance of real-time PCR with culture-based methods for identifying bacteria in sputum samples from patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in three studies.

Methods

This was an exploratory analysis of sputum samples collected during an observational study of 127 patients (AERIS; NCT01360398), phase 2 study of 145 patients (NTHI-004; NCT02075541), and phase 2b study of 606 patients (NTHI-MCAT-002; NCT03281876). Bacteria were identified by culture-based microbiological methods in local laboratories using fresh samples or by real-time PCR in a central laboratory using frozen samples. Haemophilus influenzae positivity with culture was differentiated from H. haemolyticus positivity by microarray analysis or PCR. The feasibility of bacterial detection by culture-based methods on previously frozen samples was also examined in the NTHI-004 study.

Results

Bacterial detection results from both culture-based and PCR assays were available from 2,293 samples from AERIS, 974 from the NTHI-004 study, and 1736 from the NTHI-MCAT-002 study. Quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) showed higher positivity rates than culture for H. influenzae (percentages for each study: 43.4% versus 26.2%, 47.1% versus 23.6%, 32.7% versus 10.4%) and Moraxella catarrhalis (12.9% versus 6.3%, 19.0% versus 6.0%, 15.5% versus 4.1%). In the NTHI-004 and NTHI-MCAT-002 studies, positivity rates were higher with qPCR for Streptococcus pneumoniae (15.6% versus 6.1%, 15.5% versus 3.8%); in AERIS, a lower rate with qPCR than with culture (11.0% versus 17.4%) was explained by misidentification of S. pseudopneumoniae/mitis isolates via conventional microbiological methods. Concordance analysis showed lowest overall agreement for H. influenzae (82.0%, 75.6%, 77.6%), due mainly to culture-negative/qPCR-positive samples, indicating lower sensitivity of the culture-based methods. The lowest positive agreement (culture-positive/qPCR-positive samples) was observed for S. pneumoniae (35.1%, 71.2%, 71.2%). Bacterial load values for each species showed a proportion of culture-negative samples with a load detected by qPCR; for some samples, the loads were in line with those observed in culture-positive samples. In the NTHI-004 study, of fresh samples that tested culture-positive, less than 50% remained culture-positive when tested from freeze/thawed samples. In the NTHI-004 study, of fresh samples that tested culture-positive, less than 50% remained culture-positive when tested from freeze/thawed samples.

Discussion

Real-time PCR on frozen sputum samples has enhanced sensitivity and specificity over culture-based methods, supporting its use for the identification of common respiratory bacterial species in patients with COPD.

Is single-inhaler triple therapy for COPD cost-effective in the UK? The IMPACT trial

Background

The IMPACT trial demonstrated superior outcomes following 52 weeks of once-daily single-inhaler treatment with fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) (100/62.5/25 μg) compared with once-daily FF/VI (100/25 μg) or UMEC/VI (62.5/25 μg). This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of FF/UMEC/VI compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from a UK National Health Service perspective.

Methods

Patient characteristics and treatment effects from IMPACT were populated into a hybrid decision tree/Markov economic model. Costs (GB£ inflated to 2018 equivalents) and health outcomes were modelled over a lifetime horizon, with a discount rate of 3.5% per annum applied to both. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of key assumptions and input parameters.

Results

Compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI, FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.296 and 0.145 life years (LYs) (discounted) and 0.275 and 0.118 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), at an additional cost of £1129 and £760, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for FF/UMEC/VI were £4104/QALY and £3809/LY gained versus FF/VI and £6418/QALY and £5225/LY gained versus UMEC/VI. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000/QALY, the probability that FF/UMEC/VI was cost-effective was 96% versus FF/VI and 74% versus UMEC/VI. Results were similar in a subgroup of patients recommended triple therapy in the 2019 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence COPD guideline.

Conclusions

FF/UMEC/VI single-inhaler triple therapy improved health outcomes and was a cost-effective option compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI for patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations in the UK at recognised cost-effectiveness threshold levels.

This analysis demonstrates that fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) provides a cost-effective treatment option versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI for patients with symptomatic COPD in the UKhttps://bit.ly/3w7vQj9

Genetics plays a limited role in predicting chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treatment response and exacerbation

BACKGROUND

Combination treatments, targeting multiple disease processes, benefit subjects with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). However, predicting treatment response and exacerbation risk remain challenging.

OBJECTIVE

To identify genetic associations with AECOPD risk and response to combination therapy (fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium bromide and vilanterol).

METHODS

The genetic basis of AECOPD disease was investigated in 19,841 subjects from 23 clinical studies and 2 disease cohorts to identify exacerbation disease targets. AECOPD pharmacogenetic effects were examined in 8439 moderate to severe COPD patients with exacerbation rate, lung function and quality of life endpoints; results were followed up in an additional 2201 subjects.

RESULTS

We did not identify significant associations in the AECOPD disease analysis. In the AECOPD pharmacogenetics analysis, rs56195836 (MAPK8) was significantly associated with moderate to severe exacerbation rate in subjects on fluticasone furoate with baseline blood eosinophils ≥150 cells/μl (P = 1.8 × 10^-8). Post-hoc, one variant was associated with on-treatment moderate to severe exacerbation rate stratifying by exacerbation history. AZU1 rs1962343 was significantly associated in subjects with frequent moderate exacerbation history when treated with fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (P = 1.1 × 10^-8). Neither of these signals was supported in independent follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Common genetic variants do not play major roles in AECOPD disease nor predict response to triple therapy or its components in moderate to very severe COPD.

Discovery of a novel class of inhaled dual pharmacology muscarinic antagonist and β2 agonist (MABA) for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

The targeting of both the muscarinic and β-adrenergic pathways is a well validated therapeutic approach for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In this communication we report our effort to incorporate two pharmacologies into a single chemical entity, whose characteristic must be suitable for a once daily inhaled administration. Contextually, we aimed at a locally acting therapy with limited systemic absorption to minimize side effects. Our lung-tailored design of bifunctional compounds that combine the muscarinic and β-adrenergic pharmacologies by the elaboration of the muscarinic inhibitor 7, successfully led to the potent, pharmacologically balanced muscarinic antagonist and β₂ agonist (MABA) 13.

InforMing the PAthway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial: fibrinogen levels predict risk of moderate or severe exacerbations

BACKGROUND

Fibrinogen is the first qualified prognostic/predictive biomarker for exacerbations in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The IMPACT trial investigated fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. This analysis used IMPACT trial data to examine the relationship between fibrinogen levels and exacerbation outcomes in patients with COPD.

METHODS

8094 patients with a fibrinogen assessment at Week 16 were included, baseline fibrinogen data were not measured. Post hoc analyses were performed by fibrinogen quartiles and by 3.5 g/L threshold. Endpoints included on-treatment exacerbations and adverse events of special interest (AESIs).

RESULTS

Rates of moderate, moderate/severe, and severe exacerbations were higher in the highest versus lowest fibrinogen quartile (0.75, 0.92 and 0.15 vs 0.67, 0.79 and 0.10, respectively). The rate ratios (95% confidence interval [CI]) for exacerbations in patients with fibrinogen levels ≥ 3.5 g/L versus those with fibrinogen levels < 3.5 g/L were 1.03 (0.95, 1.11) for moderate exacerbations, 1.08 (1.00, 1.15) for moderate/severe exacerbations, and 1.30 (1.10, 1.54) for severe exacerbations. There was an increased risk of moderate/severe exacerbation (hazard ratio [95% CI]: highest vs lowest quartile 1.16 [1.04, 1.228]; ≥ 3.5 g/L vs < 3.5 g/L: 1.09 [1.00, 1.16]) and severe exacerbation (1.35 [1.09, 1.69]; 1.27 [1.08, 1.47], respectively) with increasing fibrinogen level. Cardiovascular AESIs were highest in patients in the highest fibrinogen quartile.

CONCLUSIONS

Rate and risk of exacerbations was higher in patients with higher fibrinogen levels. This supports the validity of fibrinogen as a predictive biomarker for COPD exacerbations, and highlights the potential use of fibrinogen as an enrichment strategy in trials examining exacerbation outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02164513.

Review on the correlation between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and eosinophil in peripheral blood

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is an irreversible disease characterized by the limitation of continuous airflow. Eosinophil (EOS) in peripheral blood plays a key role in the acute exacerbation of COPD. Eosinophil-increased COPD has become an important variant of COPD and the focus of individualized treatment of COPD. Numerous studies have shown that an increased eosinophil count or an increased percentage in the peripheral blood closely correlates to the acute exacerbation and prognosis of COPD. Therefore, this study intends to review the progress of domestic and foreign research on the correlation between COPD and EOS.

InforMing the PAthway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT Trial) Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy (Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol) Versus Fluticasone Furoate/Vilanterol and Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Patients With COPD: Analysis of the Western Europe and North America Regions

BACKGROUND

The InforMing the Pathway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial demonstrated lower moderate/severe exacerbation rates with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a history of exacerbations. Since IMPACT was a global study, post-hoc analyses were conducted by geographic region to investigate potential differences in overall findings.

METHODS

IMPACT was a 52-week, randomized, double-blind trial. Patients with symptomatic COPD and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year were randomized 2:2:1 to once-daily FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25µg, FF/VI 100/25µg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25µg. Endpoints assessed in the overall, Western Europe and North America populations included on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation (rates and time-to-first), trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score. Safety was assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 10,355 patients were enrolled, 3164 from Western Europe, 2639 from North America. FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in Western Europe (rate ratios 0.82 [95%CI 0.74-0.91], P<.001 and 0.76 [0.67-0.87], P<.001) and in North America (0.87 [0.77-0.97], P=.014 and 0.69 [0.60-0.80], P<.001). FF/UMEC/VI reduced time-to-first moderate/severe exacerbation and improved lung function versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in both regions, and improved SGRQ total score in Western Europe, but not North America. Safety profiles were generally similar between treatment groups/regions; the inhaled corticosteroid class effect of increased pneumonia incidence was seen in North America but not Western Europe.

CONCLUSION

Consistent with intent-to-treat results, FF/UMEC/VI reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rate and risk and improved lung function in Western Europe and North America; however, between-regions differences were seen for SGRQ total score and pneumonia incidence.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02164513.

Single inhaler triple therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in patients with COPD: subgroup analysis of the China cohort in the IMPACT trial

OBJECTIVES

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is becoming a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in China. In the IMPACT trial, fluticasone furoate[FF]/umeclidinium[UMEC]/vilanterol[VI] single-inhaler triple therapy demonstrated lower rates of moderate/severe exacerbations than dual therapy with FF/VI or UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations. This analysis investigates the China cohort and its consistency with the overall ITT population.

METHODS

10,355 patients were randomized 2:2:1 to once-daily FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg, FF/VI 100/25 µg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg for 52 weeks. Endpoints included: annual rates of exacerbations, time-to-first on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation and change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) at Week-52. Clinical trial registration is NCT02164513 (CTT116855).

RESULTS

535 patients (5.2%) were from China. Annual on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rate was 0.81 with FF/UMEC/VI versus 0.96 with FF/VI (rate ratio: 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64, 1.11; p = .227) and 0.80 with UMEC/VI (rate ratio: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.72, 1.44; p = .929). Hazard ratio for time-to-first moderate/severe exacerbation was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.63, 1.11; p = .218) for FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.27; p = .516) versus UMEC/VI. Significant improvements in mean change from baseline in trough FEV₁ were observed for FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI (treatment difference 137 mL; 95% CI: 86, 188; p < .001) and UMEC/VI (63 mL; 0, 125; p = .050). Health status was improved with FF/UMEC/VI versus both dual therapies. Results were similar to the overall ITT population. No new safety signals were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-inhaler triple therapy with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI reduced the rate and risk of exacerbations, and improved lung function and health status in the China cohort similar to the overall ITT population. No new safety signals were identified.

Triple Versus Dual Combination Therapy in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Asian Countries: Analysis of the IMPACT Trial

Introduction

In the IMPACT trial, single-inhaler triple therapy fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI dual therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); however, pneumonia incidence was higher in FF-containing arms. As COPD is a growing problem in Asia, we compared the efficacy and safety of FF/UMEC/VI in Asia versus non-Asia regions.

Methods

IMPACT was a double-blind, 52-week trial in symptomatic COPD patients with ≥ 1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year. This pre-specified analysis evaluated the annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s, and St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score, mortality, and safety (including pneumonia) in Asia versus non-Asia regions.

Results

The intent-to-treat population comprised 10,355 patients (Asia n = 1644 [16%]). Rate ratios (95% confidence intervals) for moderate/severe exacerbations with FF/UMEC/VI were 0.89 (0.76–1.05) versus FF/VI and 0.86 (0.71–1.04) versus UMEC/VI in Asia, and 0.84 (0.79–0.90) and 0.74 (0.68–0.80) in non-Asia. Efficacy of FF/UMEC/VI on other endpoints was similar in both regions. There was an increased incidence of investigator-reported pneumonia in patients in Asia (FF/UMEC/VI: 13%; FF/VI: 14%; UMEC/VI: 6%) compared with non-Asia (FF/UMEC/VI: 6%; FF/VI: 5%; UMEC/VI: 4%). The increased risk of pneumonia in patients in Asia was most marked in patients with lower body mass index, lower lung function, and taking inhaled corticosteroids. In post hoc analysis of adjudicated on-treatment all-cause mortality, probabilities of death were numerically lower in both regions with FF/UMEC/VI (Asia: 1.16%; non-Asia: 1.35%) and FF/VI (Asia: 1.77%; non-Asia: 1.21%) versus UMEC/VI (Asia: 1.91%; non-Asia: 2.23%).

Conclusions

FF/UMEC/VI provides similar benefits in COPD patients in Asia and non-Asia regions. Clinical benefits of treatment, including reduction in mortality risk, should be weighed against risk of pneumonia, taking account of all known risk factors.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identification, NCT02164513.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s41030-020-00136-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Efficacy of FF/UMEC/VI compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI in patients with COPD: subgroup analysis of the Spain cohort in IMPACT

OBJECTIVES

The IMPACT trial has compared the benefit in the reduction of moderate/severe exacerbations of single inhaler triple therapy (SITT) with fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) versus dual therapy with FF/VI (ICS/LABA) and UMEC/VI (LAMA/LABA) in the treatment of patients with chronic obstructive disease (COPD). This study performs a subgroup analysis of the cohort from Spain in the IMPACT study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In IMPACT, a 52-week randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study (N = 10,355), patients ⩾40 years of age with COPD and ⩾1 moderate/severe exacerbations in the previous year were randomized 2:2:1 to once-daily FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg, FF/VI 100/25 µg or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg administered via the Ellipta inhaler. Here, we present a subgroup analysis of the 499 patients from Spain, included in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population in the study. Endpoint assessed included exposure-adjusted rate of moderate and severe exacerbations.

RESULTS

In the Spain cohort, the exposure-adjusted rate of on-treatment moderate/severe COPD exacerbations per year for FF/UMEC/VI was 1.31 versus 1.43 and 1.57 for FF/VI and UMEC/VI, respectively. No new adverse events were identified. The results are consistent with those observed in the overall ITT study population.

CONCLUSION

In the Spain cohort of the IMPACT study, patients receiving triple therapy with FF/UMEC/VI had a lower exposure-adjusted rate of exacerbations compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI, similar to the overall population.Study Title: A Phase III, 52 Week, Randomized, Double-blind, 3-arm Parallel Group Study, Comparing the Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of the Fixed Dose Triple Combination FF/UMEC/VI With the Fixed Dose Dual Combinations of FF/VI and UMEC/VI, All Administered Once-daily in the Morning Via a Dry Powder Inhaler in Subjects With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseURL: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=CTT116855/ https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02164513Registration number: GSK (CTT116855/NCT02164513).The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Effect of Age on the Efficacy and Safety of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple-Therapy Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Patients With COPD: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Informing the Pathway of COPD Treatment Trial

BACKGROUND

In the Informing the Pathway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial, single-inhaler triple-therapy fluticasone furoate (FF), umeclidinium (UMEC), and vilanterol (VI) reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates vs FF/VI and UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations, with a similar safety profile.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Are trial outcomes with single-inhaler triple-therapy FF/UMEC/VI vs FF/VI and UMEC/VI affected by age in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

IMPACT was a phase III, double-blind, 52-week trial. Patients ≥ 40 years of age with symptomatic COPD and ≥ 1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year were randomly assigned 2:2:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 μg, FF/VI 100/25 μg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg. End points assessed by age included annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, change from baseline (CFB) in trough FEV₁, proportion of St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) responders (≥ 4 units decrease from baseline in SGRQ total score), and safety.

RESULTS

The intention-to-treat population comprised 10,355 patients; 4,724 (46%), 4,225 (41%), and 1,406 (14%) were ≤ 64, 65 to 74, and ≥ 75 years of age, respectively. FF/UMEC/VI reduced on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rates vs FF/VI (% reduction [95% CI]: ≤ 64 years, 8% [-1 to 16]; P = .070; 65-74 years, 22% [14-29]; P < .001; ≥ 75 years, 18% [3-31]; P = .021) and vs UMEC/VI (≤ 64 years, 16% [7-25]; P = .002; 65-74 years, 33% [25-41]; P < .001; ≥ 75 years, 24% [6-38]; P = .012), with greatest rate reduction seen in the 65 to 74 and ≥ 75 years subgroups. Post hoc analyses of CFB in trough FEV₁ and proportion of SGRQ responders at week 52 were significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI than with FF/VI or UMEC/VI in all subgroups. No new safety signals were identified.

INTERPRETATION

FF/UMEC/VI reduced the rate of moderate/severe exacerbations and improved lung function and health status vs FF/VI and UMEC/VI irrespective of age for most end points, with a similar safety profile.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02164513; URL: www.clinicaltrials.govCTT116855.

Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy and Health-Related Quality of Life in COPD: The IMPACT Study

Introduction

The phase 3 InforMing the PAthway of COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) Treatment (IMPACT) trial, single-inhaler therapy with fluticasone furoate (FF) 100 μg, umeclidinium (UMEC) 62.5 μg, and vilanterol (VI) 25 μg demonstrated a reduction in the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. This article reports additional evidence of improvements in symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with FF/UMEC/VI compared with either FF/VI or UMEC/VI from the IMPACT study.

Methods

Patient-reported HRQoL assessments and symptom measures included as pre-specified IMPACT end points were the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and Baseline Dyspnea Index (BDI) as the anchor for the Transitional Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score (BDI/TDI) in a subset of patients enrolled at study sites in North America and Europe. Change from baseline was assessed at weeks 4, 28, and 52.

Results

The intent-to-treat population included 10,355 patients (TDI population: 5058 patients). Clinically meaningful improvements in SGRQ total score between baseline and week 52 favored FF/UMEC/VI over FF/VI (− 1.8 units, p < 0.001) and UMEC/VI (− 1.8 units, p < 0.001). Similar improvements in the CAT and TDI focal score were also observed with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations, once-daily FF/UMEC/VI, compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI, improves patient-perceived HRQoL and symptoms.

Trial Registration Number

NCT02164513.

Reduction in All-Cause Mortality with Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Rationale: The IMPACT (Informing the Pathway of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Treatment) trial demonstrated a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (ACM) risk with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus UMEC/VI in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at risk of future exacerbations. Five hundred seventy-four patients were censored in the original analysis owing to incomplete vital status information.

Objectives: Report ACM and impact of stepping down therapy, following collection of additional vital status data.

Methods: Patients were randomized 2:2:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 μg, FF/VI 100/25 μg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg following a run-in on their COPD therapies. Time to ACM was prespecified. Additional vital status data collection and subsequent analyses were performed post hoc.

Measurements and Main Results: We report vital status data for 99.6% of the intention-to-treat population (n = 10,355), documenting 98 (2.36%) deaths on FF/UMEC/VI, 109 (2.64%) on FF/VI, and 66 (3.19%) on UMEC/VI. For FF/UMEC/VI, the hazard ratio for death was 0.72 (95% confidence interval, 0.53–0.99; P = 0.042) versus UMEC/VI and 0.89 (95% confidence interval, 0.67–1.16; P = 0.387) versus FF/VI. Independent adjudication confirmed lower rates of cardiovascular and respiratory death and death associated with the patient’s COPD.

Conclusions: In this secondary analysis of an efficacy outcome from the IMPACT trial, once-daily single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI triple therapy reduced the risk of ACM versus UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations.

Single-inhaler triple therapy fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus fluticasone furoate/vilanterol and umeclidinium/vilanterol in patients with COPD: results on cardiovascular safety from the IMPACT trial

Background

This analysis of the IMPACT study assessed the cardiovascular (CV) safety of single-inhaler triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI dual therapy.

Methods

IMPACT was a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter Phase III study comparing the efficacy and safety of FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 mcg with FF/VI 100/25 mcg or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg in patients ≥40 years of age with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year. The inclusion criteria for the study were intentionally designed to permit the enrollment of patients with significant concurrent CV disease/risk. CV safety assessments included proportion of patients with and exposure-adjusted rates of on-treatment CV adverse events of special interest (CVAESI) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), as well as time-to-first (TTF) CVAESI, and TTF CVAESI resulting in hospitalization/prolonged hospitalization or death.

Results

Baseline CV risk factors were similar across treatment groups. Overall, 68% of patients (n = 7012) had ≥1 CV risk factor and 40% (n = 4127) had ≥2. At baseline, 29% of patients reported a current/past cardiac disorder and 58% reported a current/past vascular disorder. The proportion of patients with on-treatment CVAESI was 11% for both FF/UMEC/VI and UMEC/VI, and 10% for FF/VI. There was no statistical difference for FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in TTF CVAESI (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85, 1.11; p = 0.711 and HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.78, 1.08; p = 0.317, respectively) nor TTF CVAESI leading to hospitalization/prolonged hospitalization or death (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.93, 1.51; p = 0.167 and HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.72, 1.27; p = 0.760, respectively). On-treatment MACE occurred in ≤3% of patients across treatment groups, with similar prevalence and rates between treatments.

Conclusions

In a symptomatic COPD population with a history of exacerbations and a high rate of CV disease/risk, the proportion of patients with CVAESI and MACE was 10–11% and 1–3%, respectively, across treatment arms, and the risk of CVAESI was low and similar across treatment arms. There was no statistically significant increased CV risk associated with the use of FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI, and UMEC/VI versus FF/VI.

Trial registration

NCT02164513 (GSK study number CTT116855).

The effect of exacerbation history on outcomes in the IMPACT trial

IMPACT, a 52-week, randomised, double-blind trial, assessed the efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations.

Subgroup analyses assessed whether the efficacy of FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI and UMEC/VI versus FF/VI varies according to prior exacerbation history, and the combined effects of exacerbation history and blood eosinophil counts. Three subgroups were defined: single moderate (1 moderate/no severe; n=3056 (30%)), frequent moderate (≥2 moderate/no severe; n=4628 (45%)) and severe (≥1 severe/any moderate; n=2671 (26%)). End-points included annual on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rate (pre-specified), lung function and health status (both post-hoc).

Moderate/severe exacerbation rates (reduction % (95% CI)) were reduced in the FF/UMEC/VI group versus FF/VI (single moderate 20% (10–29), frequent moderate 11% (2–19), severe 17% (7–26)) and versus UMEC/VI (single moderate 18% (5–29), frequent moderate 29% (21–37), severe 26% (14–35)). Moderate/severe exacerbation rates were reduced in the FF/VI group versus UMEC/VI in the frequent moderate subgroup; a numerical reduction was observed in the severe subgroup (single moderate 2% (−12–18), frequent moderate 21% (11–29), severe 11% (−3–22)). Moderate/severe exacerbation rates were lower in the FF/VI group compared with UMEC/VI in patients with higher eosinophil counts. FF/UMEC/VI improved lung function and health status versus both dual therapies irrespective of exacerbation subgroup. UMEC/VI improved lung function versus FF/VI in all subgroups.

Triple therapy was more effective than dual regardless of exacerbation history, consistent with results in the intent-to-treat population. Comparisons between dual therapies were influenced by prior exacerbation history and eosinophil counts.

FF/UMEC/VI shows benefits vs FF/VI and UMEC/VI across multiple endpoints irrespective of exacerbation history. Exacerbation history and eosinophils influenced the comparison between UMEC/VI and FF/VI, and eosinophils that between FF/UMEC/VI and UMEC/VI.http://bit.ly/2SHu2ey

The IMPACT Study - Single Inhaler Triple Therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) Versus FF/VI And UMEC/VI In Patients With COPD: Efficacy And Safety In A Japanese Population

Purpose

The Informing the Pathway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) study demonstrated that single-inhaler triple therapy fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) reduces moderate/severe exacerbation rates and improves lung function and health status versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI dual therapy in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations. This analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of FF/UMEC/VI in patients enrolled in Japan.

Patients and methods

IMPACT was a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study comparing FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg with FF/VI 100/25 µg or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg in patients ≥40 years with symptomatic COPD and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year. Endpoints included annual rate of on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbations (primary endpoint), time-to-first on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation and change from baseline at Week 52 in trough FEV₁, post-bronchodilator FEV₁, St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, and COPD Assessment Test score. Safety was also assessed.

Results

The Japan subgroup accounted for only 4% (378/10,355) of the overall IMPACT intent-to-treat (ITT) population. In the Japan subgroup, FF/UMEC/VI reduced the annual rate of on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbations by 15% (95% CI: −20, 40) versus FF/VI (compared with 15% [10, 20] in the ITT) and 36% (95% CI: 6, 57) versus UMEC/VI (compared with 25% [19, 30] in the ITT). FF/UMEC/VI reduced moderate/severe exacerbation risk (time-to-first), improved lung function and health status at Week 52 versus both dual therapies. These results were in the same direction and of a generally similar magnitude to those seen in the overall ITT population. No new safety signals were identified in the Japan subgroup compared with the ITT population. Pneumonia incidence was higher with FF/UMEC/VI and FF/VI versus UMEC/VI.

Conclusion

These results highlight the favorable benefit–risk profile of FF/UMEC/VI single-inhaler triple therapy compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI dual therapy in patients in Japan with symptomatic COPD and ≥1 exacerbation in the prior year.

Medical Treatment of COPD

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is common around the world and carries a high morbidity and mortality. Symptom- and risk-oriented drug treatment is recommended, both in Germany and in other countries. It is not yet known to what extent the treatment that is actually delivered in Germany corresponds to the current recommendations in the guidelines.

METHODS

As recommended by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) in 2017, 2281 patients of the national COPD cohort COSYCONET (COPD and Systemic Consequences-Comorbidities Network) were classified into Gold classes A-D on the basis of disease-specific manifestations and the frequency of exacerbations. Moreover, the regular use of medications was documented and categorized according to active substance groups. For all groups, the documented treatment that was actually given was compared to the recommended treatment.

RESULTS

67.6% of the patients received a combination of a long-acting anticholinergic drug (LAMA) and a long-acting beta-mimetic drug (LABA), while 65.8% received inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), 11.7% theophylline, and 12.6% oral corticosteroids (OCS). Despite recommendations to the contrary, 66% of the patients in Groups A and B (low exacerbation rates) were treated with ICS; some of these patients carried an additional diagnosis of bronchial asthma. There was evidence of undertreatment mainly in groups C and D (high exacerbation rate), because many of the patients in these groups were not treated with LAMA or LAMA/LABA as recommended.

CONCLUSION

The observed deviations from the recommended treatment, some of which were substantial, might lead to suboptimal treatment outcomes as well as to avoidable side effects of medication.

Animal Models Reflecting Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Related Respiratory Disorders: Translating Pre-Clinical Data into Clinical Relevance

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) affects the lives of an ever-growing number of people worldwide. The lack of understanding surrounding the pathophysiology of the disease and its progression has led to COPD becoming the third leading cause of death worldwide. COPD is incurable, with current treatments only addressing associated symptoms and sometimes slowing its progression, thus highlighting the need to develop novel treatments. However, this has been limited by the lack of experimental standardization within the respiratory disease research area. A lack of coherent animal models that accurately represent all aspects of COPD clinical presentation makes the translation of promising in vitrodata to human clinical trials exceptionally challenging. Here, we review current knowledge within the COPD research field, with a focus on current COPD animal models. Moreover, we include a set of advantages and disadvantages for the selection of pre-clinical models for the identification of novel COPD treatments.

Blood eosinophils and treatment response with triple and dual combination therapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: analysis of the IMPACT trial

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have highlighted a relationship between reduction in rate of exacerbations with therapies containing inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and baseline blood eosinophil count in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The IMPACT trial showed that once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy significantly reduced exacerbations versus dual therapies. Blood eosinophil counts and smoking status could be important modifiers of treatment response to ICS. We aimed to model these relationships and their interactions, including outcomes other than exacerbations.

METHODS

IMPACT was a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, 52-week global study comparing once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (fluticasone furoate-umeclidinium-vilanterol) with dual inhaled therapy (fluticasone furoate-vilanterol or umeclidinium-vilanterol). Eligible patients had moderate-to-very-severe COPD and at least one moderate or severe exacerbation in the previous year. We used fractional polynomials to model continuous blood eosinophil counts. We used negative binomial regression for numbers of moderate and severe exacerbations, severe exacerbations, and pneumonia. We modelled differences at week 52 in trough FEV₁, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, and Transition Dyspnoea Index using repeated measurements mixed effect models. IMPACT was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02164513.

FINDINGS

The magnitude of benefit of regimens containing ICS (fluticasone furoate-umeclidinium-vilanterol n=4151 and fluticasone furoate-vilanterol n=4134) in reducing rates of moderate and severe exacerbations increased in proportion with blood eosinophil count, compared with a non-ICS dual long-acting bronchodilator (umeclidinium-vilanterol n=2070). The moderate and severe exacerbation rate ratio for triple therapy versus umeclidinium-vilanterol was 0·88 (95% CI 0·74 to 1·04) at blood eosinophil count less than 90 cells per μL and 0·56 (0·47 to 0·66) at counts of 310 cells per μL or more; the corresponding rate ratio for fluticasone furoate-vilanterol versus umeclidinium-vilanterol was 1·09 (0·91 to 1·29) and 0·56 (0·47 to 0·66), respectively. Similar results were observed for FEV₁, Transition Dyspnoea Index, and SGRQ total score; however, the relationship with FEV₁ was less marked. At blood eosinophil counts less than 90 cells per μL and at counts of 310 cells per μL or more, the triple therapy versus umeclidinium-vilanterol treatment difference was 40 mL (95% CI 10 to 70) and 60 mL (20 to 100) for trough FEV₁, -0·01 (-0·68 to 0·66) and 0·30 (-0·37 to 0·97) for Transition Dyspnoea Index score, and -0·01 (-1·81 to 1·78) and -2·78 (-4·64 to -0·92) for SGRQ total score, respectively. Smoking status modified the relationship between observed efficacy and blood eosinophil count for moderate or severe exacerbations, Transition Dyspnoea Index, and FEV₁, with former smokers being more corticosteroid responsive at any eosinophil count than current smokers.

INTERPRETATION

This analysis of the IMPACT trial shows that assessment of blood eosinophil count and smoking status has the potential to optimise ICS use in clinical practice in patients with COPD and a history of exacerbations.

FUNDING

GlaxoSmithKline.

Evidence-based review of data on the combination inhaler umeclidinium/vilanterol in patients with COPD

The use of inhaled, fixed-dose, long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) combined with long-acting, beta2-adrenergic receptor agonists (LABA) has become a mainstay in the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). One of the fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations is the dry powder inhaler (DPI) of umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) and vilanterol trifenatate (VI) (62.5 µg/25 µg) approved for once-a-day maintenance treatment of COPD. This paper reviews the use of fixed-dose combination LAMA/LABA agents focusing on the UMEC/VI DPI inhaler in the maintenance treatment of COPD. The fixed-dose combination LAMA/LABA inhaler offers a step beyond a single inhaled maintenance agent but is still a single device for the COPD patient having frequent COPD exacerbations and persistent symptoms not well controlled on one agent. Currently available clinical trials suggest that the once-a-day DPI of UMEC/VI is well-tolerated, safe and non-inferior or better than other currently available inhaled fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations for COPD.

Single Inhaler LABA/LAMA for COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common disabling disease characterized by progressive airflow obstruction. Great efforts were spent in the development of drugs able to improve symptoms, quality of life, reduce exacerbations, hospitalizations and the frequency of death of patients with COPD. The cornerstones of treatment are bronchodilator drugs of two different classes: beta agonists and muscarinic antagonists. Currently the Global initiative for COPD suggests the use of long acting beta agonists (LABAs) and long acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) in combination for the majority of COPD patients, thus great interest is associated with the developing of LAMA/LABA fixed combination in the maintenance treatment of stable COPD. Many LAMA/LABA fixed dose combinations have been licensed in different countries and the clinical use of these drugs stimulated the performance of many clinical trials. The purpose of this review is a complete criticism of pharmacological and clinical aspects related to the use of LAMA/LABA single inhalers for the maintenance treatment of stable COPD, with particular mention to the most debated topics and future prospects in the field.

When to use single-inhaler triple therapy in COPD: a practical approach for primary care health care professionals

While single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) devices were not available when the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease strategy and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines were developed, two devices are now available in the UK. This paper offers practical, patient-focused advice to optimize placement of SITT in the management of COPD. A survey of UK health care professionals (HCPs) identified issues around, and attitudes toward, SITT, which informed a multidisciplinary expert panel’s discussions. The survey confirmed the need to clarify the place of SITT in COPD management. The panel suggested three criteria, any one of which identifies a high-risk patient where escalation to triple therapy from monotherapy or double combination treatment is appropriate: 1) at least two exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both in the previous year; 2) at least one severe exacerbation that required hospital admission in the previous year; 3) one exacerbation a year on a repeated basis for 2 consecutive years. Appropriate non-pharmacological management is essential for all patients and should be considered before stepping up treatment. Regular review is essential. During each review, HCPs should consider stepping treatment up or down. If patients exacerbate despite adhering to triple therapy, an individualized approach should be considered if the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) confers benefit or causes side effects. In this situation, the blood eosinophil count could aid decision making. ICSs should be continued when the history suggests that asthma overlaps with COPD. Training, counseling, and education should be individualized. HCPs should consider referral: 1) when there is limited response to treatment and persistent exacerbations; 2) where there is diagnostic uncertainty or suspected comorbidity; 3) whenever they feel “out of their depth.” Overall, the panel concurred that when used correctly, SITT has the potential to improve adherence, symptom control, and quality of life, and reduce exacerbations. Studies using real-world evidence need to confirm these benefits.

Dual combination therapy versus long-acting bronchodilators alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Long-acting bronchodilators such as long-acting β-agonist (LABA), long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combinations have been used in people with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to control symptoms such as dyspnoea and cough, and prevent exacerbations. A number of LABA/LAMA combinations are now available for clinical use in COPD. However, it is not clear which group of above mentioned inhalers is most effective or if any specific formulation works better than the others within the same group or class.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of available formulations from four different groups of inhalers (i.e. LABA/LAMA combination, LABA/ICS combination, LAMA and LABA) in people with moderate to severe COPD. The review will update previous systematic reviews on dual combination inhalers and long-acting bronchodilators to answer the questions described above using the strength of a network meta-analysis (NMA).

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies from the Cochrane Airways Specialised Register, which contains several databases. We also conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov and manufacturers' websites. The most recent searches were conducted on 6 April 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited people aged 35 years or older with a diagnosis of COPD and a baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) of less than 80% of predicted. We included studies of at least 12 weeks' duration including at least two active comparators from one of the four inhaler groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted NMAs using a Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo method. We considered a study as high risk if recruited participants had at least one COPD exacerbation within the 12 months before study entry and as low risk otherwise. Primary outcomes were COPD exacerbations (moderate to severe and severe), and secondary outcomes included symptom and quality-of-life scores, safety outcomes, and lung function. We collected data only for active comparators and did not consider placebo was not considered. We assumed a class/group effect when a fixed-class model fitted well. Otherwise we used a random-class model to assess intraclass/group differences. We supplemented the NMAs with pairwise meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 101,311 participants from 99 studies (26 studies with 32,265 participants in the high-risk population and 73 studies with 69,046 participants in the low-risk population) in our systematic review. The median duration of studies was 52 weeks in the high-risk population and 26 weeks in the low-risk population (range 12 to 156 for both populations). We considered the quality of included studies generally to be good.The NMAs suggested that the LABA/LAMA combination was the highest ranked treatment group to reduce COPD exacerbations followed by LAMA in the both populations.There is evidence that the LABA/LAMA combination decreases moderate to severe exacerbations compared to LABA/ICS combination, LAMA, and LABA in the high-risk population (network hazard ratios (HRs) 0.86 (95% credible interval (CrI) 0.76 to 0.99), 0.87 (95% CrI 0.78 to 0.99), and 0.70 (95% CrI 0.61 to 0.8) respectively), and that LAMA decreases moderate to severe exacerbations compared to LABA in the high- and low-risk populations (network HR 0.80 (95% CrI 0.71 to 0.88) and 0.87 (95% CrI 0.78 to 0.97), respectively). There is evidence that the LABA/LAMA combination reduces severe exacerbations compared to LABA/ICS combination and LABA in the high-risk population (network HR 0.78 (95% CrI 0.64 to 0.93) and 0.64 (95% CrI 0.51 to 0.81), respectively).There was a general trend towards a greater improvement in symptom and quality-of-life scores with the combination therapies compared to monotherapies, and the combination therapies were generally ranked higher than monotherapies.The LABA/ICS combination was the lowest ranked in pneumonia serious adverse events (SAEs) in both populations. There is evidence that the LABA/ICS combination increases the odds of pneumonia compared to LAMA/LABA combination, LAMA and LABA (network ORs: 1.69 (95% CrI 1.20 to 2.44), 1.78 (95% CrI 1.33 to 2.39), and 1.50 (95% CrI 1.17 to 1.92) in the high-risk population and network or pairwise OR: 2.33 (95% CI 1.03 to 5.26), 2.02 (95% CrI 1.16 to 3.72), and 1.93 (95% CrI 1.29 to 3.22) in the low-risk population respectively). There were significant overlaps in the rank statistics in the other safety outcomes including mortality, total, COPD, and cardiac SAEs, and dropouts due to adverse events.None of the differences in lung function met a minimal clinically important difference criterion except for LABA/LAMA combination versus LABA in the high-risk population (network mean difference 0.13 L (95% CrI 0.10 to 0.15). The results of pairwise meta-analyses generally agreed with those of the NMAs. There is no evidence to suggest intraclass/group differences except for lung function at 12 months in the high-risk population.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The LABA/LAMA combination was the highest ranked treatment group to reduce COPD exacerbations although there was some uncertainty in the results. LAMA containing inhalers may have an advantage over those without a LAMA for preventing COPD exacerbations based on the rank statistics. Combination therapies appear more effective than monotherapies for improving symptom and quality-of-life scores. ICS-containing inhalers are associated with an increased risk of pneumonia.Our most comprehensive review including intraclass/group comparisons, free combination therapies, 99 studies, and 20 outcomes for each high- and low-risk population summarises the current literature and could help with updating existing COPD guidelines.

Fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium bromide, and vilanterol as a combination therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Introduction: Triple therapy with two bronchodilators (LABA plus LAMA) and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) is recommended for patients suffering from severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Areas covered: All 12-52 week-long studies comparing triple therapy with umeclidinium (UM) added to either fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) vs. other comparators in COPD patients of group B or D (2011 GOLD classification) were considered. When UM was added to ICS/LABA with separate devices or within a single device, triple combination was more effective than comparators (usually, ICS/LABA combinations) regarding improvements to pulmonary function, symptoms, quality of life and, in the longer studies, rate of moderate-severe exacerbations. The IMPACT study (a large trial comparing UM/FF/VI with both FF/VI and UM/VI combinations) showed that triple therapy had a greater effect compared to dual therapies in reducing the rate of moderate-severe exacerbations, improving trough FEV1 and improving quality of life. The safety profile was good, without excess cardiovascular effects or pneumonia, however, the presence of comorbidities was frequent. Expert commentary: UM/FF/VI combination represents a good option for severe COPD patients who remain symptomatic and/or with frequent exacerbations despite dual therapies. Once daily administration with a simple and effective device may increase adherence and efficacy of the treatment.

Preventing clinically important deterioration with single-inhaler triple therapy in COPD

Clinically important deterioration (CID) is a novel composite end-point (lung function, health status, exacerbations) for assessing disease stability in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We prospectively analysed CID in the FULFIL study. FULFIL (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02345161; randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, multicentre study) compared 24 weeks of once daily, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 µg with twice daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) 400/12 μg in patients aged ≥40 years with symptomatic advanced COPD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease group D). A subset of patients received study treatment for up to 52 weeks. Time to first CID event was assessed over 24 and 52 weeks using two approaches for the health status component: St George's Respiratory Questionnaire and COPD assessment test. FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced the risk of a first CID event by 47-52% versus BUD/FOR in the 24- and 52-week populations using both CID definitions (p<0.001). The median time to first CID event was ≥169 days and ≤31 days with FF/UMEC/VI and BUD/FOR, respectively. Only stable patients with no CID at 24 weeks demonstrated sustained clinically important improvements in lung function and health status at 52 weeks versus those who had experienced CID. Once daily, single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced the risk of CID versus twice daily BUD/FOR with a five-fold longer period without deterioration.

New developments in optimizing bronchodilator treatment of COPD: a focus on glycopyrrolate/formoterol combination formulated by co-suspension delivery technology

COPD causes considerable health and economic burden worldwide, with incidence of the disease expected to continue to rise. Inhaled bronchodilators, such as long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs), are central to the maintenance treatment of patients with COPD. Clinical studies have demonstrated that combined LAMA + LABA therapies improve efficacy while retaining a safety profile similar to LAMA or LABA alone. This has led to the development of several LAMA/LABA fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapies, which provide patients with the convenience of two active compounds in a single inhaler. GFF MDI (Bevespi Aerosphere®) is an FDC of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate 18/9.6 µg formulated using innovative co-suspension delivery technology for administration via metered dose inhaler (MDI). GFF MDI was developed to make a treatment option available for patients who have a requirement or preference to use an MDI, rather than a dry powder or soft mist inhaler. Now that several LAMA/LABA FDCs have been approved for use in COPD, we review the impact of dual-bronchodilator treatment on COPD therapy and discuss recent clinical studies that are helping to develop a more comprehensive understanding of how LAMA/LABA FDCs can improve patient outcomes.

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations: A Need for Action

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, with exacerbations contributing strongly to the overall severity and burden of disease at the individual level. Many patients with COPD are managed predominantly in the primary care setting; therefore, primary care physicians (PCPs) must be aware of and understand the causes, effects, and management of COPD exacerbations. This review offers practical information about how exacerbations are defined in the treatment setting, pathogenic and environmental causes, options for exacerbation treatment and prevention, and suggestions for improving care in the clinic. Exacerbations have a strong negative effect on patients and are associated with an increased risk of further exacerbations and decreases in lung function. Thus, it is important that exacerbations not requiring hospitalization be identified and confidently managed in the clinical setting. Understanding treatment options for acute exacerbations and maintenance treatment to prevent future exacerbations may help PCPs better understand what they can do to support their patients. This review aims to provide useful guidance for PCPs to identify exacerbations and adjust their practice for optimal management of exacerbations in patients with COPD. It also aims to encourage PCPs that they have an important task in integrating effective COPD management into the primary care setting.

An overview of glycopyrrolate/eFlow® CS in COPD

INTRODUCTION

COPD is highly prevalent in the US and globally, requiring new treatment strategies due to the high disease burden and increase in the aging population. Here, we profile the newly FDA-approved LONHALA MAGNAIR (glycopyrrolate [GLY]/eFlow® Closed System [CS]; 25 mcg twice daily), a nebulized long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) for the long-term maintenance treatment of COPD, including chronic bronchitis and/or emphysema. Areas covered: An overview of COPD and treatment landscape, focusing on GLY/eFlow CS, reviewing the published literature pertinent to the drug/device combination is reported. Expert commentary: GLY/eFlow CS consists of glycopyrrolate delivered via a novel electronic nebulizer and is the first nebulized LAMA to be approved by the FDA. GLY/eFlow CS has been studied in an extensive clinical development program, including phase II dose-ranging studies, two 12-week phase III studies demonstrating statistically significant and clinically important improvements in pulmonary function and patient-reported outcomes with a well-tolerated safety profile, and a 48-week phase III study highlighting the long-term safety of GLY/eFlow CS, along with long-term improvements in lung function and patient-reported outcomes. Additional studies are required to assess the impact of GLY/eFlow CS on COPD exacerbations, identify alternative uses of the eFlow CS nebulizer, and direct comparisons to other LAMAs.

Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple versus Dual Therapy in Patients with COPD

BACKGROUND

The benefits of triple therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with an inhaled glucocorticoid, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and a long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA), as compared with dual therapy (either inhaled glucocorticoid-LABA or LAMA-LABA), are uncertain.

METHODS

In this randomized trial involving 10,355 patients with COPD, we compared 52 weeks of a once-daily combination of fluticasone furoate (an inhaled glucocorticoid) at a dose of 100 μg, umeclidinium (a LAMA) at a dose of 62.5 μg, and vilanterol (a LABA) at a dose of 25 μg (triple therapy) with fluticasone furoate-vilanterol (at doses of 100 μg and 25 μg, respectively) and umeclidinium-vilanterol (at doses of 62.5 μg and 25 μg, respectively). Each regimen was administered in a single Ellipta inhaler. The primary outcome was the annual rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations during treatment.

RESULTS

The rate of moderate or severe exacerbations in the triple-therapy group was 0.91 per year, as compared with 1.07 per year in the fluticasone furoate-vilanterol group (rate ratio with triple therapy, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.90; 15% difference; P<0.001) and 1.21 per year in the umeclidinium-vilanterol group (rate ratio with triple therapy, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.81; 25% difference; P<0.001). The annual rate of severe exacerbations resulting in hospitalization in the triple-therapy group was 0.13, as compared with 0.19 in the umeclidinium-vilanterol group (rate ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.78; 34% difference; P<0.001). There was a higher incidence of pneumonia in the inhaled-glucocorticoid groups than in the umeclidinium-vilanterol group, and the risk of clinician-diagnosed pneumonia was significantly higher with triple therapy than with umeclidinium-vilanterol, as assessed in a time-to-first-event analysis (hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.22 to 1.92; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Triple therapy with fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol resulted in a lower rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations than fluticasone furoate-vilanterol or umeclidinium-vilanterol in this population. Triple therapy also resulted in a lower rate of hospitalization due to COPD than umeclidinium-vilanterol. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; IMPACT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02164513 .).

Practical considerations when prescribing a long-acting muscarinic antagonist for patients with COPD

COPD is characterized by persistent airflow limitation, progressive breathlessness, cough, and sputum production. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are one of the recommended first-choice therapeutic options for patients with COPD, and several new agents have been developed in recent years. A literature search identified 14 published randomized, placebo-controlled studies of the efficacy and safety of LAMAs in patients with COPD, with improvements seen in lung function, exacerbations, breathlessness, and health status. A greater weight of evidence currently exists for glycopyrronium (GLY) and tiotropium than for umeclidinium and aclidinium, especially in terms of exacerbation reductions. To date, there have been few head-to-head clinical studies of the different LAMAs. Available data indicate that GLY and aclidinium have similar efficacy to tiotropium in terms of improving lung function, dyspnea, exacerbations, and health status. Overall, evidence demonstrates that currently available LAMAs provide effective and generally well-tolerated therapy for patients with COPD. Delivery devices for the different LAMAs vary, which may affect individual patient's adherence to and preference for treatment. Subtle differences between individual therapeutic options may be important to individual patients and the final treatment choice should involve physician's and patient's experiences and preferences.

Once-daily triple therapy inhaler for COPD

▼Trelegy Ellipta (GSK) is a dry powder inhaler containing fluticasone furoate (inhaled corticosteroid [ICS]), vilanterol trifenatate (long-acting beta₂ agonist [LABA]) and umeclidinium bromide (long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]).₁ It is licensed for once-daily use as maintenance treatment for adults with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who are not adequately treated by a combination of an ICS and a LABA. Here, we consider the evidence for this combination product and discuss how it fits with current management strategies.

Extrafine inhaled triple therapy versus dual bronchodilator therapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (TRIBUTE): a double-blind, parallel group, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Evidence is scarce on the relative risk-benefit of inhaled triple therapy, consisting of inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and long-acting β₂-agonist, versus dual bronchodilation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We aimed to compare a single-inhaler triple combination of beclometasone dipropionate, formoterol fumarate, and glycopyrronium (BDP/FF/G) versus a single-inhaler dual bronchodilator combination of indacaterol plus glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) in terms of the rate of moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations over 52 weeks of treatment.

METHODS

This randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, double-dummy study was done at 187 sites across 17 countries. Eligible patients had symptomatic COPD, severe or very severe airflow limitation, at least one moderate or severe exacerbation in the previous year, and were receiving inhaled maintenance medication. After a 2 week run-in period with one inhalation per day of IND/GLY (85 μg/43 μg), patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive response technology system, to receive 52 weeks of treatment with two inhalations of extrafine BDP/FF/G (87 μg/5 μg/9 μg) twice per day or one inhalation of IND/GLY (85 μg/43 μg) per day. Randomisation was stratified by country and severity of airflow limitation. The primary endpoint was the rate of moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations across 52 weeks of treatment in all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02579850.

FINDINGS

Between May, 29 2015, and July 10, 2017, 1532 patients received BDP/FF/G (n=764) or IND/GLY (n=768). Moderate-to-severe exacerbation rates were 0·50 per patient per year (95% CI 0·45-0·57) for BDP/FF/G and 0·59 per patient per year (0·53-0·67) for IND/GLY, giving a rate ratio of 0·848 (0·723-0·995, p=0·043) in favour of BDP/FF/G. Adverse events were reported by 490 (64%) of 764 patients receiving BDP/FF/G and 516 (67%) of 768 patients receiving IND/GLY. Pneumonia occurred in 28 (4%) patients receiving BDP/FF/G versus 27 (4%) patients receiving IND/GLY. One treatment-related serious adverse event occurred in each group: dysuria in a patient receiving BDP/FF/G and atrial fibrillation in a patient receiving IND/GLY.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with symptomatic COPD, severe or very severe airflow limitation, and an exacerbation history despite maintenance therapy, extrafine BDP/FF/G significantly reduced the rate of moderate-to-severe exacerbations compared with IND/GLY, without increasing the risk of pneumonia.

FUNDING

Chiesi Farmaceutici.